Richard W. Wolff

Keogh Cox is proud to announce our six partners who have been recognized in the 2027 Best Lawyers in America® list: John P. Wolff, Andrew Blanchfield, Kirk L. Landry, Edward F. Stauss, Christopher K. Jones, and Richard W. Wolff as well as partner Brandi A. Barze who was named to the 2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® list. 

Lawyers on the Best Lawyers in America® list are divided by geographic region practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers based on professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and good standing.

This recognition demonstrates the caliber of work and commitment to excellence that define Keogh Cox and its attorneys.

On January 1, 2026, the Louisiana Legislature fundamentally changed how damages for medical specials are evaluated. By amending Louisiana Revised Statute § 9:2800.27, the Louisiana Legislature redefined how medical write-offs, “attorney discounts” and medical funding agreements are handled in personal injury cases. Following these amendments, a plaintiff’s financial recovery should be limited to the amounts actually paid to medical providers.

Louisiana’s collateral source framework historically created a significant gap between billed medical costs and actual medical payouts. Previously, juries only reviewed the plaintiff’s gross, unadjusted medical bills, while any discounted portion of those bills was not introduced as evidence. For example, even if a medical provider billed $100,000 but only received $25,000 in payment, the jury still reviewed and calculated a potential damage award based upon the billed $100,000 amount.

Generally, the trial judge was instructed to reduce the award, after the verdict, to the actual paid rate, and then apply a discretionary penalty, up to 40% of the write-off differential, to offset the plaintiff’s costs and attorney’s fees. This system established a higher baseline for initial evaluation, which influenced settlement negotiations and the claimed value of the alleged injury.

Act 466 of the 2025 Legislative Session eliminated the post-trial hearing mechanism and repealed the 40% procurement allowance. Under the current language of La. R.S. § 9:2800.27(B), a plaintiff’s past medical expense recovery is strictly limited to the amount actually paid to the contracted healthcare provider by a health insurance issuer, Medicare, or Medicaid, along with any applicable cost-sharing liabilities like deductibles or copays.  The statute now provides that juries must now be shown both the amount billed and the amount actually paid. Additionally, when counsel secures a pre-negotiated rate with a medical provider, the recovery is capped at that negotiated rate rather than the inflated “sticker price.”

It is unclear what impact these changes will have on leverage and negotiation tactics during litigation. For example, will plaintiffs shift their strategy to now include an increased medical costs projection to recoup the “billed” medicals they previously claimed under the prior rule? The answer remains unknown. However, the amendments to the collateral source rule represent a substantial shift in how personal injury damages are evaluated, to which both plaintiff and defense counsel must adjust.

The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a claim for defense and indemnity may be asserted before a judicial finding of liability. The Court’s decision overruled prior decisions that held claims for defense and indemnity were premature until it was determined that damages were actually owed and the party claiming indemnity sustained a loss.

In Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, the plaintiff alleged he was injured when he drove over a downed power line that belonged to Cox Communications. Evidence showed Cox Communications contracted with Cable Man to provide services, maintenance, and repair for its telecommunication companies. The contract covered maintenance and repair of the subject phone line.

The contract included an indemnification provision that required Cable Man to indemnify and defend Cox Communications from any and all claims relating to Cable Man’s work, Pursuant to the contract, Cox Communications sent Cable Man a request to tender defense and indemnification under the contract. Cable Man refused the tender and Cox Communications filed a cross-claim against Cable Man asserting that it was owed defense and indemnification. In response, Cable Man filed an Exception of Prematurity and maintained that the claim for indemnity had not accrued because there had not been a judgment or a finding a Cable Man’s fault or liability.

The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Exception of Prematurity and stated that “It is well-established that claims for indemnity, as well as claims for defense arising under an indemnity agreement, are premature prior to a determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss.” The court reasoned that the lawsuit was still pending against both parties and no liability determination had been made. Therefore, under the “well-established” law, Cable Man owed no obligation to Cox Communications for indemnity and costs at the time Cox asserted its cross-claim.

However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision and Cable Man’s claims of prematurity were denied. Acknowledging such claims for indemnification previously were considered premature, the Court held the law moving forward should allow for a claim for indemnity, whether in a third-party demand or a cross-claim, that is raised during the course of litigation and before a finding of liability. Further, the Court recognized potential inconsistencies with prior judicial determinations and stated, “in light of our ruling today, to the extent any prior jurisprudence can be interpreted otherwise, we now clarify that such a claim for indemnity is not prohibited before a liability adjudication.”

This ruling makes clear that “asserting a claim for indemnity, arising out of the same facts and circumstances, is not premature before a judicial finding of liability.” The right to collect on an indemnity agreement continues to be determined upon a finding of liability or loss, but a claim for indemnity can now be asserted in the same proceeding.

References:

Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, et al, 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24); 386 So.3d 270.